At 11/5/2010 10:15:00 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:I think most people think of gays as being liberal since liberals have been known for being more gay-friendly.

exactly true.

Liberals tend to be more gay-friendly in social issues. However this election was based more on economic issues (of which there shouldn't be anything pushing gays one way or another, other then their own beliefs). When the economy gets better, and people become less focused on it and more focused on social issues, gays will likely swing back to liberal.

31% of self identified gay people voted republican which is a 4% increase.

I never understood why someone's sexuality should determine their politics.

Why should one's class determine their politics? Because certain politicians enact class-friendly things, i.e. tax cuts for the rich or for the poor. Similarly, certain politicians enact sexuality-friendly things, such as marriage rights for gays or non-marriage rights for gays. A gay person has every reason to support a gay-friendly politician just as a conservative person has every reason to support a conservative politician. People choose candidates that best represent what they care most about in politics at a given moment.

Personally, I don't care about taxes as they probably help way more than they hurt me as a low-income earner. Therefore it makes sense for someone in my position to care most about things like abortion rights, the war on drugs or gay marriage because these are things that impact me directly and hit home the most... so ya damn right I'll support gay friendly politicians (and they're usually NOT Republican). However I'm betting the gay Republican votes are increasing because gays are actually a wealthy demographic (think about it - no kids, etc.) so for tax reasons I can see why many are suddenly learning Republican. Plus, WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE FOR US LATELY? With a huge majority we didn't make any progress with gay marriage (in fact took a step back), and with all the filibustering and other whining I'm not even sure if DADT is repealed yet. There's really no reason for gays to be loyal to the Democrats at this point.

At 11/5/2010 10:27:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:Personally, I don't care about taxes as they probably help way more than they hurt me as a low-income earner. Therefore it makes sense for someone in my position to care most about things like abortion rights, the war on drugs or gay marriage because these are things that impact me directly and hit home the most... so ya damn right I'll support gay friendly politicians (and they're usually NOT Republican). However I'm betting the gay Republican votes are increasing because gays are actually a wealthy demographic (think about it - no kids, etc.) so for tax reasons I can see why many are suddenly learning Republican. Plus, WHAT HAVE THE DEMOCRATS DONE FOR US LATELY? With a huge majority we didn't make any progress with gay marriage (in fact took a step back), and with all the filibustering and other whining I'm not even sure if DADT is repealed yet. There's really no reason for gays to be loyal to the Democrats at this point.

I've been saying this for a while. The dems have been happy to take unbelievable amounts of money from gay contributors for empty promises. They are being strung along and asked to donate more and more. DOMA was a Clinton creation, DADT was also a Clinton creation, promises have been made by Obama, who by the way has a more conservative look on gay marriage than Dick Cheney.

As or if the republican party becomes more libertarian, then you will see greater migration of gay voters. Although not a republican myself, I detest the democrats more than i detest the republicans because i see the republicans hurting me and the country less. And yes Zets, my feelings about marriage match up to libertarian views.

At 11/5/2010 10:41:41 AM, innomen wrote:I've been saying this for a while. The dems have been happy to take unbelievable amounts of money from gay contributors for empty promises. They are being strung along and asked to donate more and more. DOMA was a Clinton creation, DADT was also a Clinton creation, promises have been made by Obama, who by the way has a more conservative look on gay marriage than Dick Cheney.

As or if the republican party becomes more libertarian, then you will see greater migration of gay voters. Although not a republican myself, I detest the democrats more than i detest the republicans because i see the republicans hurting me and the country less. And yes Zets, my feelings about marriage match up to libertarian views.

Yeah, but I don't agree for a second that the Republicans hurt the country less than the Democrats, both socially and economically. Clinton's anti-gay policies were atrocious (especially considering his wife's a huge d*ke - heh) but it was obviously a measure to appear more bipartisan, which is what I think Obama's doing regarding the war.

Regardless I personally have a visceral reaction to anti-gay politicians. I don't think I could support a bigot even if a Democrat took more of my money... which I know sounds absolutely absurd, so I wish I were kidding lol but I'm not. I feel like at least the Dems are pretending it's for a good cause (and hey maybe in some cases it really is!) while the whole bigotry thing is just so a$s backwards, hurtful and upsetting to me to the point where I question their rationality and reasoning on other issues... In other words I don't want them in charge.

However, on a final note, yes, the Democrats need to MAN UP and start making good on their promises! They're totally stringing the gays along; it's sad.

At 11/5/2010 10:41:41 AM, innomen wrote:I've been saying this for a while. The dems have been happy to take unbelievable amounts of money from gay contributors for empty promises. They are being strung along and asked to donate more and more. DOMA was a Clinton creation, DADT was also a Clinton creation, promises have been made by Obama, who by the way has a more conservative look on gay marriage than Dick Cheney.

As or if the republican party becomes more libertarian, then you will see greater migration of gay voters. Although not a republican myself, I detest the democrats more than i detest the republicans because i see the republicans hurting me and the country less. And yes Zets, my feelings about marriage match up to libertarian views.

Yeah, but I don't agree for a second that the Republicans hurt the country less than the Democrats, both socially and economically. Clinton's anti-gay policies were atrocious (especially considering his wife's a huge d*ke - heh) but it was obviously a measure to appear more bipartisan, which is what I think Obama's doing regarding the war.

Regardless I personally have a visceral reaction to anti-gay politicians. I don't think I could support a bigot even if a Democrat took more of my money... which I know sounds absolutely absurd, so I wish I were kidding lol but I'm not. I feel like at least the Dems are pretending it's for a good cause (and hey maybe in some cases it really is!) while the whole bigotry thing is just so a$s backwards, hurtful and upsetting to me to the point where I question their rationality and reasoning on other issues... In other words I don't want them in charge.

However, on a final note, yes, the Democrats need to MAN UP and start making good on their promises! They're totally stringing the gays along; it's sad.

I watch the dollar go down in value every single day, and that is a direct result of Obama's policies. This not a small deal. Furthermore the "gay community" has done nothing for me to keep up any sort of allegiance, if anything they are the cause of more difficulties in my life than any idiotic homophobe out in east bum fu<k Kansas. I don't have some irrational need to achieve equality everywhere, and am happy to err on the side of freedom. And yeah, the tax policies of the dems hurt me more than the tax policies of the repubs.

At 11/5/2010 10:41:41 AM, innomen wrote:I've been saying this for a while. The dems have been happy to take unbelievable amounts of money from gay contributors for empty promises. They are being strung along and asked to donate more and more. DOMA was a Clinton creation, DADT was also a Clinton creation, promises have been made by Obama, who by the way has a more conservative look on gay marriage than Dick Cheney.

As or if the republican party becomes more libertarian, then you will see greater migration of gay voters. Although not a republican myself, I detest the democrats more than i detest the republicans because i see the republicans hurting me and the country less. And yes Zets, my feelings about marriage match up to libertarian views.

Yeah, but I don't agree for a second that the Republicans hurt the country less than the Democrats, both socially and economically. Clinton's anti-gay policies were atrocious (especially considering his wife's a huge d*ke - heh) but it was obviously a measure to appear more bipartisan, which is what I think Obama's doing regarding the war.

Regardless I personally have a visceral reaction to anti-gay politicians. I don't think I could support a bigot even if a Democrat took more of my money... which I know sounds absolutely absurd, so I wish I were kidding lol but I'm not. I feel like at least the Dems are pretending it's for a good cause (and hey maybe in some cases it really is!) while the whole bigotry thing is just so a$s backwards, hurtful and upsetting to me to the point where I question their rationality and reasoning on other issues... In other words I don't want them in charge.

However, on a final note, yes, the Democrats need to MAN UP and start making good on their promises! They're totally stringing the gays along; it's sad.

I watch the dollar go down in value every single day, and that is a direct result of Obama's policies. This not a small deal. Furthermore the "gay community" has done nothing for me to keep up any sort of allegiance, if anything they are the cause of more difficulties in my life than any idiotic homophobe out in east bum fu<k Kansas. I don't have some irrational need to achieve equality everywhere, and am happy to err on the side of freedom. And yeah, the tax policies of the dems hurt me more than the tax policies of the repubs.

That dollar going down really isn't a direct result of Obama's policies. It's the Fed, and while it's been continuing under Obama, the biggest increase in the money supply during this recession was under Bush, and was supported by both parties. Obama and the Democrats do support the mass money printing, but so does every Republican except for Ron and Rand Paul.

As for fiscal policy, if I could stomach voting for either party, I'd vote for a Democrat. Despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not support smaller government. Supporting tax cuts without spending cuts really isn't an improvement--it's more of a tax delay than a tax cut. And they certainly don't support cutting entitlement spending, they'd lose their base of angry old people. They don't really support repealing Obamacare; if you look at what they specifically suggest, it's pretty much the same as Obamacare. The main difference is that it wouldn't have Obama's name on it. The only real difference I see in fiscal policy is that Democrats want to maintain or slightly increase war spending, and Republicans want to significantly increase war spending. Neither party is going to make much of a difference in spending until they're forced to after they default on the debt in a few years.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

Exactly what LaissezFaire just said would be my exact response to innomen. Also, I don't feel an allegiance to the gay community; it's an allegiance to myself. I myself benefit from gay-friendly agendas.

Although you should read "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward. All his military advisors refused to give him an exit strategy, so he wrote one himself.http://www.amazon.com...

So Obama is pretty adamant about ending the wars as soon as possible and saving money.

Secretary Gates is also pretty legit in terms of trying to trim waste out of the Pentagon budget (both bureaucratic waste and eliminating contracts for unnecessary technology). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Although, with a Republican president, Gates would likely want to use the cost savings to fight more wars, or extend the ones we are already in.http://news.firedoglake.com...

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)

Maybe Obama really does want to end the wars. But the current plan is still to keep troops there forever. If the surge goes according to plan (it won't), we'll go back to the 2009 level of troops in 6 or so years, and then stay there forever. Although I don't think that's exactly what Obama wanted, I do think he cared more about other issues and reelection, and didn't do all he could to stop it.

Secretary Gates is also pretty legit in terms of trying to trim waste out of the Pentagon budget (both bureaucratic waste and eliminating contracts for unnecessary technology). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

I hope he fails, or is lying about wanted to trim bureaucracy. Waste and corruption in military spending is a good thing. If war spending is more efficient, it just means the military is doing more things with the money. Since the things that they're doing are evil, it's better if the money is just wasted or stolen instead.

Although, with a Republican president, Gates would likely want to use the cost savings to fight more wars, or extend the ones we are already in.http://news.firedoglake.com...

Probably true. If a neocon is elected president, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that Israel immediately attacks Iran, and we join in.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

I don't care about Bush he isn't president. The spending of this gov't is far worse and shows no sign of changing, if anything it's out of control. The dollar is now a joke, and to blame it on Bush is just silly. Obama is the worst manager of our money. The fed is hemorrhaging dollars in a last ditch effort by buying bonds that easily can back fire into more inflation. I hope no one has any plans of visiting Europe because the dollar is losing daily against that currency. There are no practical plans in strengthening the dollar. The pathetic scapegoating of George Bush is still keeping anyone from focusing on what is going on NOW. Which Obama promise is working out so well anyway? Does the world love us now (as if i ever gave a whit - seems like a pretty needy pathetic priority), is Guantanamo closed, wars ended, gays get what they want - you know marriage which he doesn't believe in, hows it going?

The point wasn't to scapegoat Bush, it was that the same weakening of the dollar would be experienced under Republicans, and Bush is one example of evidence of this reality. Reagan is too despite his mythological reputation as a champion of economic policy. Again it's not the Democrats or Republicans - it's the system in general. What proof do you have that it would be any better under Republican leadership? You've got their empty promises - that's it. Bush swore that those huge tax cuts would get the economy back on track. Did it? What have Republicans done for you lately that you're so gung-ho about them over the Dems? Both parties completely suck, though I'm still convinced the Dems are the (very slight) lesser evil.

At 11/5/2010 12:28:00 PM, theLwerd wrote:The point wasn't to scapegoat Bush, it was that the same weakening of the dollar would be experienced under Republicans, and Bush is one example of evidence of this reality. Reagan is too despite his mythological reputation as a champion of economic policy. Again it's not the Democrats or Republicans - it's the system in general. What proof do you have that it would be any better under Republican leadership? You've got their empty promises - that's it. Bush swore that those huge tax cuts would get the economy back on track. Did it? What have Republicans done for you lately that you're so gung-ho about them over the Dems? Both parties completely suck, though I'm still convinced the Dems are the (very slight) lesser evil.

Here's the thing. In this current situation we don't have republican so you cannot assume that it would be the same. I am far from enthusiastic about the republicans, but i am watching irresponsible behavior by the dems and republicans who are actively trying to put the brakes on. The stimulus was a stupid waste of money, and it was the republicans who were against it. The GM bailout was pushed through by the dems, the health-care program was the dems at a time when the exact opposite should be implemented. The size of government is growing at a rate that i have never seen in my lifetime. Does it help the economy to reduce the costs of doing business in this country? Yes of course.

You're saying the Republicans didn't endorse the stimulus package. Big deal. They spent tons of money elsewhere, so it's not like they don't pull the same kinds of stuff and just direct the money in other directions - like what's more profitable for them. Look at the numbers. Last year, out of the 10 senators who requested the most money for earmarks, SIX of them were Republicans. It's an entire myth that the Republican party is that of responsible spending. George W. Bush and the Repubs were just as behind the federal bailout as the Dems. Sure, the Repubs have been anti health care, but their proposals for health care are very similar. In fact Obama's plan was based on Romneycare.

Blaming Obama for the debt is as bad as blaming Bush; it's not like Obama is doing everything he wants in Washington, because Republicans are making it as hard as humanly possibly for him to do anything. When you guys blame Obama you are assuming we were born yesterday; we sat and watched as Bush sunk this ship and while Obama hasn't surface it yet he doesn't deserve the blame he receives. They don't even let him make a speech anymore without erupting into fury. Could you imagine Harry Reid getting up and shouting "YOU LIE!!" while Bush is telling us there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Republicans are predominately Christians (could there even be one without that component?), who believe based on instinct, not on humility. One must realize they don't know the universe before they can successfully assert that they do know the universe; Christianity is based on the assumption of negating the former and cutting straight to the latter. And I believe Republicans carry that frame of mind into their decision-making.

I know many people on DDO don't claim the religious card anymore and just focus on the fiscal part because the economy is the hot issue, but realize that Republicans are all Christians and you can't really vote for them without voting Jesus into the Senate, House, or Executive Office. Dems tend to be Christian as well but you have to wonder if they are just smart enough to claim it loosely just because they know atheists are not popular, generally. Even if they were, they vote against Christian politics consistently and frankly those are the politics that affect the gay community the most. I guess I don't envy gay Republicans because they are caught between a rock and a hard spot. I don't envy black Republicans for the same reason, and if you thinka about it, just about any non-Christian or minority seems to be a little weird on that side of the aisle...

I think most people think of gays as being liberal since liberals have been known for being more gay-friendly.

Well really, republicans p-ussyfoot around the gay marriage topic. It's not really a big deal to be anti-gay marriage. In this country "right vs left" takes a position, puts a strawman moderate position up against it, and calls it right vs left. Untill I see someone tie a queer's ankle around his car with a rope and drag him, I will not call them anti gay.

Boohoo, republicans SOMEWHAT oppose gay marriage. Marriage was never a right from the start, and even if you consider civil unions legit, it just sounds like "gays cannot partake in a certain sortof contract". It just sounds so dull and unthreatening... because it is...

Besides, if you got issues important to you like reducing taxes and cutting spending, then it ain't going to matter if they like you. Thats what people forget. You don't have to like somebody to work with them. White supramacists don't like me, and I don't like them. But as long as both hate gays, both of us will just have to suck it up and work together.